Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
January 25, 2020, 05:46:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 1 
 on: Today at 05:16:21 PM 
Started by TheLurker - Last post by TheLurker
> ...A close up view shows that they're still distressingly "bubbly"...
Looks fine to me.
I think I shall reconsider your recommendation to invest in varifocals. Smiley

Quote
However, if you haven't doped the Dunkelgrun tissue yet...
Too late; already doped and the stores wallahs say they're completely out of shrinking dope and aren't likely to get any in the foreseeable.

ETA.
Hang on a mo.  Did you mean the Schwartzgrun?  Because that hasn't been doped "properly", just "thinners flooded" onto the doped Dunkelgrun base.

 2 
 on: Today at 05:09:14 PM 
Started by TheLurker - Last post by abl
> ...A close up view shows that they're still distressingly "bubbly"...

Looks fine to me.

However, if you haven't doped the Dunkelgrun tissue yet, you should find that if you carefully slit the bubble(s) and then drop some water on each one from a soft brush, it'll shrink down nicely.

 3 
 on: Today at 04:56:33 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by FreeFlightModeller
Look forward to seeing the build progress, Chris  Smiley

All my Peck kits are from printwood days ... will have to check out a laser cut one.

 4 
 on: Today at 04:43:29 PM 
Started by TheLurker - Last post by TheLurker
Started on the splinter camouflage yesterday and as I feared I am making a bit of a bish of it, but no ticket monies will be refunded as I did state this to be the likely outcome way, way, waaayy back in September. Smiley

Fuselage done. Result is a bit, "meh".  Stbd wing in progress, still a couple of patches to do.  Had to do re-do the LE panels as separate panels, my, my what a fiddle, because no amount of vituperation or hacking with a scalpel would persuade them to lie any where near flat.   A close up view shows that they're still distressingly "bubbly".  Rather saddened by this as the base tissue covering was (by my standards) good.  Never mind; at squinting distance on a foggy day they'll pass.

On the upside the chosen tissues (VMC Olive, Racing Green & Easybuilt pale blue) are a pretty good match, for KS, to the prototype's scheme.

Pics.  Views of fuselage, the "bubbly" panels and the reasonably good base covering for comparison.

 5 
 on: Today at 04:30:05 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by Squirrelnet
Ok Jon I'll try to keep the pics coming  Wink you know you can't resist a YHWM

Lurker - fear not the wheels are moulded plastic, the half wheel type, nice prop too with the thrust bearing and brass thrust washers included in the pack... what's not to like.


 6 
 on: Today at 04:24:45 PM 
Started by torqueburner - Last post by Little-Acorn
This year's rules say we can have either a monoplane or "biplane configuration". Pretty obviously that means two wings, one above the other.

Is there anything in the rules prohibiting us from having two stabilizers, one above the other?

As I recall, if there isn't specific language in the rules prohibiting something, judges will usually allow it.

Right? Wrong?

 7 
 on: Today at 04:08:09 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by TheLurker
I think you may have given me the answer to MrsLurker's question, "What would you like for your birthday?"   Smiley

In the meantime I shall sit back, watch and learn.

P.S.  Are the wheels those horrid paper-backed half shells like those that Peck ship with the Lacey M10?


 8 
 on: Today at 03:47:20 PM 
Started by bendds - Last post by bendds
When I was building free flight in the 1960s, the center-of-gravity was always supposed to be 50-75% of the wing chord, if my memory serves.  I've built two EZBs in the past two months, and have put the CG at about 60% for stability  I know that the rules for F1L have changed considerably in 50 years.  Elsewhere on this forum, people are talking about putting their wings in front of CG.  Has something in aerodynamics changed, or has something been done to increase stability?  Thanks

 9 
 on: Today at 03:41:18 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by Yak 52
Hello Chris,

I started one of these from plans a few years ago but didn't get any further than the wing. I'm hoping that seeing your build will get me inspired to continue. Please post lots of pics Smiley

Jon

 10 
 on: Today at 03:40:08 PM 
Started by Konrad - Last post by Konrad
I’ve been stalled on this project mainly because of transport issues, I have a first gen. Prius. Also I’ve ben focused of FAI F3F racing. And now that the FAA has given us a drop dead date for our hobby I thought I'd try to fly this model befor that date.

Now I’ve heard that there are some concerns with the Taft Scorpion in that she hunts in pitch. I found this a bit odd with that huge stabilizer. Looking closely at the control linkage I found a gross engineering oversight. Taft is using a large set screw as a drive pin to connect the control horn to the stabilizer axle. This results in a horrible amount of slop between the control arm and axle (shaft) as one can’t torque down on the set screw. I’ve read that some guys are trying to use teflon tape and or loctite to take up the clearance. The fix is to allow the arm to clamp down on the shaft. I’ve decided to change the drive mechanism with a cap screw verses the drive pin. To do this one needs to make 2 modification to the arm. First is the drill out the threaded holes to clear the 3mm threads of the cap screw. And then make a trough in the control arm to allow clearance for the cap screw head. Keeping the thread in the shaft allows the head of the cap screw to clamp the arm onto the shaft. This also allow one to add torque to the threads taking up any clearance in the threads. I still add loctite for stability but with the clamping force from the cap screw there in no slop to allow the stabilizers to move.

All the best,
Konrad

 11 
 on: Today at 02:19:50 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by Squirrelnet
Hi Skymon

 I would say the wood is very good. I have some indoor wood from microX I bought decades ago and the PP strip wood compares well with that much of it looks like quarter grain. The sheet wood looks good too. As kits go the wood in PP kits is very good, in a different league to the 'tea chest' wood of the likes of Guillows

 12 
 on: Today at 02:09:34 PM 
Started by ffadict - Last post by Skymon
Paul
Whe it comes to flying - record everything!
Make your self some flying sheets with the usual details and a nice space for notes.
Plan everything, make up some sets of flight data and fly those numbers.

I am terrible at flying sessions, I start methodically and then as the hours move on I get into tweaks and tweaks and I forget to note that changes.
It means that those flights are worthless really.

Don't be afraid to mark your wing/stab posts with a fine marker to show where your settings are - use a phone to take pictures of each post/surface interface position.

Write everything down - even the bad stuff.

Then set your self targets at your regular venues.

If you record your journey, you will enjoy it and you can repeat the results.
Happy flying Smiley
Si

 13 
 on: Today at 01:59:15 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by Skymon
That looks like a really neat kit. How good is the wood?
I am very tempted by these little scale planes.

 14 
 on: Today at 01:35:20 PM 
Started by kaintuck - Last post by kaintuck
She’s been a tuff one to build....it’s a learning experience!
Small 01 geared size motor, vapor prop, and a simple electric timer, using a vapor size battery....
I laminated the tail feathers and wing tips....and because the round body...and long wheel pants, I leveled her on temporary stilts.....

 15 
 on: Today at 01:02:59 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by Squirrelnet
 I've always had a bit of a soft spot for the humble YHWM and the Piper Cub has to be my favourite. The Peck kit has been on my to build list for a while, since I saw them as a youngster at Indoor meetings in the early 1980's in fact.

They look very nice in flight and the small peanut size of the clipped wing version makes a very cute little model to my eye. A recent trip to an OFMAC Berinsfield indoor meeting sealed the deal. Fellow flyers Pete B and his son had just completed one over the Christmas break , Pete had it flying nicely in a very short space of time and it looks great in the air - I had to build one.

 The kit arrived from SAMS along with some other goodies and what an impressive kit it is. Nice laser cut wood, 2 sheet plan with 3 view drawing included all hardware - prop wheels etc along with 2 sheets of the obligatory yellow tissue ( Peck I think)  some waterslide decals, there's even a bit of what looks like Super Sport rubber for trimming. There's also some mods to the original kit too thanks to Wind-it-up who now produce them. There's an improved motor peg mount which is laser cut to take 3/32" dowel which is also is supplied but I substituted some Ali tube I had in stock

So far I have just one side built, all very straight forward though I did steam the longerons into shape and stuck it together with the usual Aliphatic

 16 
 on: Today at 11:51:47 AM 
Started by DerekMc - Last post by TheLurker
Bought another cork bath mat.

 17 
 on: Today at 10:25:51 AM 
Started by Pit - Last post by tross
I like that one George.
Looks like a great little flier.

The wind hasn't let up much here.
Searching around last fall for a new subject I was inspired by this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAHOM_MZZBw.
Here are a few of the initial test flights.
https://youtu.be/4eaE96Af8yI
Tony

 18 
 on: Today at 09:55:53 AM 
Started by DerekMc - Last post by p40qmilj
 Grin  got the frogflite mustang finished. now needs touch up work as well as balancing and flight tests.

here are the construction pics. plan is in hippocket site.

jim Grin Grin Grin

 19 
 on: Today at 09:31:39 AM 
Started by scrubs - Last post by DHnut
Thanks for the explanation Tapio. I am trying to promote small field classes because inspite of being a small population flying sites are difficult to find within a reasonable distance of urban areas. At least we do not have to deal with a river and lakes being nearby. Also it provides an entry level into electric.
Ricky

 20 
 on: Today at 09:29:57 AM 
Started by scrubs - Last post by Yak 52
But I think E-36 also shows a warning sign how performance goes way too high, if the power is not sufficiently limited.

Yes, I agree. It's not hard to achieve excessive power. I have a build going which uses a Racerstar BR1104 on 2S that in theory will give me 95g static thrust for a 50g (ish) model. The question is will it be possible to trim  Roll Eyes The idea in the Open class is that any excesses will weed themselves out - build too powerful or too light and it will bite you. One of our members used an AP03 (I think) but found he couldn't trim it without restricting the power. Surprisingly after a summer of Open flying the Ferry 500 class models are still very competitive in the Open class even though they are somewhat 'agriculural' Smiley but it's still early days.

kV (50000 max)

Do you mean 50000 RPM max? Usually 8.5mm coreless are around 17,000-19,000 Kv at best. I've tested some of these (Micro Motor Warehouse CL-0820-18 Dark Edition) and you only get a gram or two more static thrust for considerable extra amp draw. This means greater demands on the battery capacity and C-rating so I'm not sure they make much improvement on balance. I think a minimum weight limit as per the American rules is probably effective too.


Look forward to seeing you Ricky Smiley
As Tapio said - with a low pitch, small blade area prop such as found on electric models it's less drag to stop it windmilling. The brushed 12mm motors for Ferry 500 have enough resistance to stop naturally so no brake is required. The coreless ones freewheel much more easily.

My head is in scale mode at the moment but I will be preparing for the summer flying E20 soon.

 21 
 on: Today at 08:34:39 AM 
Started by scrubs - Last post by Tapio Linkosalo
How about using the E36 timer interfaced to a driver / brake pcb added to the rear of the coreless motor or as an in-line device in the motor lead. I would recommend adding a time delay so both FETs are not on together or at least some small value resistive component in the brake FET circuit.

A little more weight perhaps but this 2 part concept may have other merits or convenience to you.

Definitely a plan to start with. If the setup works OK and there is an urge to go even smaller footprint, then maybe design a PCB just for the E20.


 22 
 on: Today at 08:00:16 AM 
Started by scrubs - Last post by raggedflyer
How about using the E36 timer interfaced to a driver / brake pcb added to the rear of the coreless motor or as an in-line device in the motor lead. I would recommend adding a time delay so both FETs are not on together or at least some small value resistive component in the brake FET circuit.

A little more weight perhaps but this 2 part concept may have other merits or convenience to you.

 23 
 on: Today at 07:44:20 AM 
Started by scrubs - Last post by Tapio Linkosalo
SOT 23 should be fine - I have used some that are rated for 5 or 6A. (On a short run though) I generally use TO252 or SOT223 for the simple Peterborough timer as they are easier to solder and the design doesn't use a circuit board.

I have a more sophisticated analog circuit that has a fast cut off and prop brake - a brake will be needed for coreless motors because they freewheel easily and spoil the glide.

I'd be interested to see what you come up with Tapio, I have been working towards an etched PCB design incorporating a DT but have stalled a little with indoor projects taking precedence. It would be good to collaborate Smiley

I attached a picture of my E-36 timer. It uses a 8-legged soic-case PIC for microcontroller, drives the ESC and one servo, has input for RDT (actually coupled with the switch so you can stop the motor and program by the start button too), and uses a small buzzer to notify the set flight time, model armed status, and is used a locating beeper once the model has landed. Something similar, maybe even a tad smaller should work for E20, and use an onboard FET for driving the motor (and another FET for brake). My timer uses a Palm handheld for setting the times, as I use that also for my bigger (glider, wakefield, and F1Q to come) timers. Not very handy if you do not have one already, but for me it uses the same sofware on Palm for all the timers. Yes I have plans to migrate the software to Android, once I have the extra time... Smiley

The buzzer is really useful for small models to locate it after landing!

 24 
 on: Today at 07:34:34 AM 
Started by scrubs - Last post by Tapio Linkosalo
Yes, when we started flying E20 here in the PMFC we were influenced by windy conditions and our small field. So the Ferry 500 rules favoured heavier/robust/simple models on a short motor run. Motor obsolescence was then the motive to try an 'anything goes' Open rule. The hope was that the freedom to innovate would allow the class to evolve and improve. The sample size is small  Cool with only a few participants and it's an ongoing process. My own developments are pointing towards using a 10mm coreless on 1S. The 8.5mm motors are more available and you can get some good ones but the 10mm's have that bit extra thrust/weight which is important for our short motor run time.

We also didn't want to get too technical with the rules by limiting power like F1Q  Shocked

But I think E-36 also shows a warning sign how performance goes way too high, if the power is not sufficiently limited.

For the moment I think that defining motor dimensions (8520 max), kV (50000 max) and prop max diameter, together with battery max voltage (4.2V to avoid HV lipos) and maybe max capacity might be a sufficient and easily checked means to be the power restricted. I think that would be the rules set that I will be suggesting for our local rules in Finland.

 25 
 on: Today at 07:30:46 AM 
Started by scrubs - Last post by Tapio Linkosalo
I was interested in your comment about not allowing the prop to freewheel. Is this because it is small and the cone of disturbed air is small?

With low pitch (or actually P/D ratio) the freewheeling prop brakes more thana stopped one. The prop blade airfoil is actually lifting, but backwads. Thus it would be beneficial to stop the ptop. For high P/D and wide blades (as in rubber props) things are different, freewheeling is better.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!